Good day, I’ve been off the deck for a while and looking to get back into it. I was wondering if I could also get a link to the discord or be directed to where I can find it <3
I was also wondering why the deck has moved away from Serum Visions toward explore? Is it mostly to allow more basic lands to be played? Or is explore just better by helping to allow early primetimes more than serum visions?
Terrible idea: Splash UU for Jace ourselves. I've not personally played with Jace outside of cube before, but from what I've seen, if he's protected, you can just get ridiculously far ahead fairly quickly. He isn't white, which is a gigantic pain. However, I feel like his raw power could be high enough to offset this fact and earn him a slot or two in the deck, nonetheless.
I've been off the deck for a long time, so I'm naturally less in tune with what the deck lacks, and Jace is probably not the answer. The first question I had to re-ask myself was, "why not just play straight U/W," and that just diverges off-topic >.<
As a slower midrange deck which is often forced to play the grind game, JtMS could be a serviceable tool in my eyes. Additionally, the blue splash allows us to upgrade some number of *** to Supreme Verdict and O-ring to Detention Sphere, among other things. Does this sound way too crazy, or just partly crazy to the rest of you all?
Hello everybody, I've been playing Omelette Titan for a while now to good results at my local game stores. I was wondering what people think about cutting pact of negation or moving it to the sideboard. Given that the 1-of U pact is pretty set in stone about now, let me present my thought process around its removal.
1) I've never been happy drawing a U-pact in a game. This is certainly natural, as it's meant as a specific answer to niche situations that you tutor up, but especially in the opener I tend to wish it was any other card.
2) I feel like in the situations where I can reasonably transmute for it and pay for it the next turn, I would rather just tutor another threat as a G-pact or Ballista. While this of course isn't always true, in the last 20 or so matches I've played with the deck, I haven't found a situation where I really wanted to tutor up a U-pact.
3) The situations where you can cast it, and the situations where you want to cast it don't seem to align enough. Maybe this is just a misinterpretation based on my local metagame, but it has seemed like if I can cast a U-pact, I'm likely already winning. Whereas when I really need the answer, I can't afford 3UU for it.
I suppose in summary, U-pact has felt like almost a win-more card, save for a few specific gamestates that I'm not sure come up enough for my tastes? The opportunity cost to cast a U-pact restricts its viability as an effective answer, naturally. The card has just felt so bad to me that I'm considering replacing it (probably with a tracker). Has anybody else felt that cutting U-pact is anything but completely insane? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts so I can grow as a player! Thanks everyone for your time!
What kinds of cards have provided a solution in your experience? I've only played proc for a while and have been struggling to find too many proactive gameplans outside of drawing Martyr with an Ascendant (which I feel isn't consistent enough to be the primary proactive plan, but maybe I'm wrong in this assumption.) The Nahiri variants have felt good to me, and Gideon has helped too, but against combo and such it is also too slow barring a lot of postboard softlock pieces.
So, I was looking at the top 8 for GP Kobe, and while many of the decks were unconventional they were in a field with Death's Shadow, Ad Nauseam, ect. So they must have some merit.
The thing that caught my eye the most was Esper control running 4 Glory-Bound Initiate. Given that Proc decks do care about their life total somewhat, the lifelink off Exert seems valuable to help enable Ascendants. (this could make the 4 Serra Ascendant plan much less likely of backfiring when you don't have a Martyr.) Additionally, I feel Proc decks tend to lack the ability to put meaningful clocks on your opponent, which makes it suffer greatly against combo and tron and any matchup where you have to be the beatdown. And the initiate does provide a decent contribution to your clock.
What are people's thoughts on the Glory-Bound Initiate, and its potential application in Proc decks?
I was also wondering why the deck has moved away from Serum Visions toward explore? Is it mostly to allow more basic lands to be played? Or is explore just better by helping to allow early primetimes more than serum visions?
I've been off the deck for a long time, so I'm naturally less in tune with what the deck lacks, and Jace is probably not the answer. The first question I had to re-ask myself was, "why not just play straight U/W," and that just diverges off-topic >.<
As a slower midrange deck which is often forced to play the grind game, JtMS could be a serviceable tool in my eyes. Additionally, the blue splash allows us to upgrade some number of *** to Supreme Verdict and O-ring to Detention Sphere, among other things. Does this sound way too crazy, or just partly crazy to the rest of you all?
1) I've never been happy drawing a U-pact in a game. This is certainly natural, as it's meant as a specific answer to niche situations that you tutor up, but especially in the opener I tend to wish it was any other card.
2) I feel like in the situations where I can reasonably transmute for it and pay for it the next turn, I would rather just tutor another threat as a G-pact or Ballista. While this of course isn't always true, in the last 20 or so matches I've played with the deck, I haven't found a situation where I really wanted to tutor up a U-pact.
3) The situations where you can cast it, and the situations where you want to cast it don't seem to align enough. Maybe this is just a misinterpretation based on my local metagame, but it has seemed like if I can cast a U-pact, I'm likely already winning. Whereas when I really need the answer, I can't afford 3UU for it.
I suppose in summary, U-pact has felt like almost a win-more card, save for a few specific gamestates that I'm not sure come up enough for my tastes? The opportunity cost to cast a U-pact restricts its viability as an effective answer, naturally. The card has just felt so bad to me that I'm considering replacing it (probably with a tracker). Has anybody else felt that cutting U-pact is anything but completely insane? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts so I can grow as a player! Thanks everyone for your time!
The thing that caught my eye the most was Esper control running 4 Glory-Bound Initiate. Given that Proc decks do care about their life total somewhat, the lifelink off Exert seems valuable to help enable Ascendants. (this could make the 4 Serra Ascendant plan much less likely of backfiring when you don't have a Martyr.) Additionally, I feel Proc decks tend to lack the ability to put meaningful clocks on your opponent, which makes it suffer greatly against combo and tron and any matchup where you have to be the beatdown. And the initiate does provide a decent contribution to your clock.
What are people's thoughts on the Glory-Bound Initiate, and its potential application in Proc decks?